Constitutional Law Commons^™

April 3, 2011: The Legal Background Of Burning The Qur’An, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Legal Background of Burning the Qur’an“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The Last Common Law Justice: The Personal Jurisdiction Jurisprudence Of Justice John Paul Stevens, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

February 26, 2011: The Power Of The President Not To Defend The Law, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Power of the President Not to Defend the Law“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

February 17, 2011: Shari’Ah And Constitutionalism, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Shari’ah and Constitutionalism“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

January 3, 2011: The Incredible Shrinking Free Exercise Clause, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “The Incredible Shrinking Free Exercise Clause“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

The Problem With Pretext, Lynn E. Blais

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article examines the problems with the Supreme Court's holding in Kelo v. City of New London that the concept of public use is expansive unless the government is asserting the public use as a "mere pretext" and the true purpose is private benefit. The author examines the level of scrutiny applied in such cases, the link between pretext and motive, and the tests applied to evaluate pretext challenges: the burden-shifting motives test, the sufficiency of the plan taste, and the benefits to the public test. The author concludes that pretext is an "unworkable mechanism" for evaluating public use cases.

The Viability Of Multi-Party Litigation As A Tool For Social Engineering Six Decades After The Restrictive Covenant Cases, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

Six decades ago, a group of lawyers sought ways to overturn the racially restrictive covenants that were common across the United States. These restrictions on integrated neighborhoods were the first legal battleground of the civil rights movement using the courts of civil justice to remove what many thought were immoral restrictions on the rights of free people. The most famous of those cases was Shelley v. Kraemer, but the doctrine that emerged from that particular case was actually a series of separate, multi-party lawsuits in various locations, using teams of lawyers acting in concert with each other to achieve justice. …

Reasoning About The Irrational: The Roberts Court And The Future Of Constitutional Law, H. Jefferson Powell

Faculty Scholarship

Commentary on the future direction of the Roberts Court generally falls along lines that correlate with the commentators' political views on the desirability of the Court's recent decisions. A more informative approach is to look for opinions suggesting changes in the presuppositions with which the Justices approach constitutional decision making. In footnote 27 in his opinion for the Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller Second Amendment decision, Justice Scalia suggested a fundamental revision of the Court's assumptions about the role of judicial doctrine, and the concept of rationality, in constitutional law. Justice Scalia would eliminate the normative aspects …

Case For Calling An Article V Convention, Paul D. Carrington

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Roberts’ Rules: The Assertiveness Of Rules-Based Jurisprudence, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Hosanna-Tabor And Supreme Court Precedent: An Analysis Of The Ministerial Exception In The Context Of The Supreme Court’S Hands-Off Approach To Religious Doctrine, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

The United States Supreme Court‘s review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC could lead to a major development in the Court‘s Religion Clause jurisprudence. On one level, Hosanna-Tabor presents important questions regarding the interrelationship between employment discrimination laws and the constitutional rights of religious organizations. The narrow issue at the center of the case is the ministerial exception, a doctrine that precludes courts from adjudicating discrimination claims arising out of disputes between religious institutions and their ministerial employees. This Essay …

The Supreme Court And Judicial Review: Two Views, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Criminal Law Jurisprudence: Fair Trials, Cruel Punishment, And Ethical Lawyering—October 2009 Term, Richard Klein

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Judicial Activism And The Interpretation Of The Voting Rights Act, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Articles by Maurer Faculty

From the moment the U.S. Supreme Court first confronted the difficult constitutional questions at the heart of the Voting Rights Act, its posture has been one of deference. This posture has continued to this day. In contrast, the Court has interpreted the language of the Act dynamically, often in total disregard to the text of the law or the intent of Congress. But as this Article explains, the Roberts Court appears poised to unsettle this longstanding narrative. The Act is in serious constitutional danger. One way to explain this move on the part of the Court is by invoking the …

Business Interests Cases - October 2009 Term, Leon D. Lazer Honorable, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Buck V. Bell: A Constitutional Tragedy From A Lost World, Victoria Nourse

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Some constitutional tragedies are well known: Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States are taught to every first-year law student. Buck v. Bell is not. Decided in 1927 by the Taft Court, the case is known for its shocking remedy--sterilization--and Justice Holmes's dramatic rhetoric: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." A mere five paragraphs long, Buck v. Bell could represent the highest ratio of injustice per word ever signed on to by eight Supreme Court Justices, progressive and conservative alike.

Buck v. Bell is not a tragedy as some others might define tragedy: it is not a well-known opinion, …

So Much For The Commerce Clause Challenge To Individual Mandate Being "Frivolous", Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Remember when the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual insurance mandate was dismissed by all serious and knowledgeable constitutional law professors and Nancy Pelosi as "frivolous"? Well, as Jonathan notes, the administration is now apparently telling the New York Times that the individual insurance "requirement" and "penalty" is really an exercise of the Tax Power of Congress.

Cracks In The Wall, A Bulge Under The Carpet: The Singular Story Of Religion, Evolution, And The U.S. Constitution, Susan Haack

Articles

No abstract provided.

Grabbing The Bullcoming By The Horns: How The Supreme Court Could Have Used Bullcoming V. New Mexico To Clarify Confrontation Clause Requirements For Csi-Type Reports, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the pilot episode of the hit television show CSI, Grissom says to Warrick: "Concentrate on what cannot lie. The evidence." Although Grissom is a beloved figure in U.S. popular culture, the U.S. is currently unwilling to accept that evidence never lies. In stark contrast to Grissom's statement, the common law has a long history of allowing criminal defendants to cross-examine and question witnesses providing evidence against them. The right to confront an accusatory witness is reflected in the historical legal documents of Great Britain, in Shakespearean writing, and even in the Bible. In the United States, the right to …

The Four Pillars Of Constitutional Doctrine, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Constitutional interpretation, and thus constitutional doctrine, is inevitably controversial. Judges, scholars, lawyers, politicians, and the American public all disagree among themselves, not only about the correct constitutional outcome but even about the right approach to constitutional interpretation. We are unlikely to reach consensus on whether we should read the Constitution as a living and evolving document or instead read it in accordance with a fixed original meaning, much less on whether it does or does not protect campaign contributions, reproductive rights, affirmative action policies, gun ownership, or any of the other contested issues that have recently come before the Supreme …

Congress, The Supreme Court, And Judicial Review: Testing A Constitutional Separation Of Powers Model, Stefanie A. Lindquist, Jeffrey A. Segal, Chad Westerland

Scholarship@WashULaw

Recent scholarship suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court might be constrained by Congress in constitutional cases. We suggest two potential paths to Congressional influence on the Court's constitutional decisions: a rational-anticipation model, in which the Court moves away from its preferences in order to avoid being overruled, and an institutional-maintenance model, in which the Court protects itself against Congressional attacks to its institutional prerogatives by scaling back its striking of laws when the distance between the Court and Congress increases. We test these models by using Common Space scores and the original roll-call votes to estimate support in the current …

The Multiple-Stage Process Of Judicial Review: Facial And As-Applied Constitutional Challenges To Legislation Before The U.S. Supreme Court, Stefanie A. Lindquist, Pamela C. Corley

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate a legislative enactment involves both the choice to strike as well as the choice whether to invalidate the statute on its face or as applied. Both choices implicate the possibility of counteraction by the legislature. In this paper, we evaluate the justices’ choices to invalidate a state or federal enactment on its face or as applied and find that the justices are responsive to congressional preferences concerning the substance of the legal challenge at both stages of judicial review. Other factors systematically affect the justices’ decisions as well, including the legal basis for the …

Skilling: More Blind Monks Examining The Elephant, Julie R. O'Sullivan

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Most academics and practitioners with whom the author has discussed the result in Skilling v. United States believe that it is a sensible decision. That is, the Supreme Court did the best it could to limit the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which all nine justices apparently believed—correctly—was, on its face, unconstitutionally vague. Congress responded quickly and with little consideration with the supremely under-defined § 1346. In the over twenty years since the statute's enactment, the Courts of Appeals have been unable to come up with any unified limiting principles to contain its reach. The Skilling Court, evidently reluctant …

The Architecture Of First Amendment Free Speech, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Electing Our Judges And Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court's "Triple Whammy", Martin Belsky

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In this article, Martin Belsky makes the case for judicial selection based on merit, as opposed to popular elections. Belsky cites Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company and the recent defeat of three Iowa supreme court justices because of their opinion in a controversial gay marriage case for the proposition that judicial elections can, and do, yield unjust results. Belsky asserts the need for judicial independence, but concludes that this goal is not achievable through elections because of the "triple whammy" of constitutional limitations: (1) the First Amendment protection of the right of judges and judicial candidates to give specific, …

December 8, 2010: Uphold Proposition 8, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Uphold Proposition 8“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

December 5, 2010: Seeking Common Ground: A Secular Statement, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Seeking Common Ground: A Secular Statement“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

From One [Expletive] Policy To The Next: The Fcc's Regulation Of "Fleeting Expletives" And The Supreme Court's Response, Brandon J. Almas

Federal Communications Law Journal

After the broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, during which the lead singer from U2 uttered an expletive on national television, the FCC revisited its prior policy on the use of expletives on the airwaves and declared, for the first time, that "fleeting expletives" are offensive according to community standards and are therefore finable. In a lawsuit filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Fox Television Stations, Inc. along with a number of other broadcasters argued that the FCC's new policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Second …

November 7, 2010: How To Fix The Establishment Clause, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “How to Fix the Establishment Clause“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

November 3, 2010: Pat Tommey A Citizens United Victory, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Pat Tommey a Citizens United Victory“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.